The High Court addressed a case of non-compliance with witness statement rules but refused to implicate the solicitor involved.
- In a claim concerning Venezuelan debt monetisation, the court examined preliminary matters, including non-compliance with Practice Direction 57AC.
- The claimant criticised the defendants for an oppressive analysis of the witness statements, while the court found the statements document-driven.
- Chief Master Shuman decided the statements should be rewritten, but declined to scrutinise the solicitor’s role in their preparation.
- The court also rejected the claimant’s late request for expert evidence, citing efficiency and cost concerns.
The High Court deliberated on a claim revolving around the business opportunity of monetising Venezuelan sovereign debt, listed for trial later this year. A major point of contention was the compliance of witness statements with Practice Direction 57AC, which has been a focus since its implementation in April 2021.
The defendants asserted that the claimant’s witness statements did not adhere to the requisite standards, prompting a detailed examination of their compliance. Accusations of over-analysis were levied by the claimant, who described the defendants’ 31-page critique as oppressive.
Chief Master Shuman underscored the risks involved in failing to follow the best practices outlined, acknowledging that tactical over-analysis should be avoided but affirming the need for adherence to directives to prevent applications of this nature.
Notably, the court identified a dissonance in the witness statements, perceiving them more as document-derived rather than true oral accounts pertinent to the trial’s context. This misalignment with Practice Direction 57AC’s intent prompted the court to mandate a rewrite of the statements.
Despite granting this order, Chief Master Shuman resisted compelling Daniel Hemming, the solicitor who signed the compliance certificates, to elucidate the preparation process. She reasoned such an order could unnecessarily complicate legal proceedings and was unnecessary given the directive to amend the statements.
Additionally, Chief Master Shuman rejected an untimely application from the claimant for expert testimony on Latin American debt instruments, criticising the delay and lack of engagement with opposing solicitors, which could disrupt the trial’s schedule.
In resolving these preliminary matters, the court reinforced the significance of compliance and efficiency in legal proceedings without implicating solicitors needlessly.
